Quiz2D Statistics

Version 7 is a complete rewrite of the Nolan Chart based political quiz.
For this version I opted for an objective tone and a focus on specific
proposals vs. sentiments. You cannot get small-government cred by claiming
to want spending cuts in general. You have to call for cutting real programs
which affect real people.
Also, I have attempted to give as many bigger government options as
smaller government options.
And the intros list arguments from multiple sides; both pro and anti government
arguments are given.

You can see how I score each answer by looking at the stats. See the right
hand column. I use a 0-100 score, with 0 being the biggest government answer
and 100 being the smallest. For most questions I set the status quo to be
50. I made exceptions for Guns and Health Care. For Guns, you get a higher
than 50 score for keeping the status quo given the pressure to do something
after the recent tragedy. For Health Care, you get less than 50 for the status
quo, since ObamaCare is recent and not fully implemented. You get a 52 for
calling for going back to what we had before ObamaCare.

My scoring is a bit weird for Social Security. The problem with Social Security
is that payouts are in part a tax refund for taxes collected long ago.
Means testing cuts government payouts, but it is also a retroactive tax on professional
class retirees. Quibble if you like on how I score for this question, but note
how I lean towards giving out scores below 50.
Maybe I bias towards scoring people authoritarian for this issue.

At the bottom of the score column, you will see a total score. This is a
weighted average score for all participants for the chart in question.

Version 6 of the Quiz ran from 2004 to the middle of 2012.
Version 6 attempted to measure sentiment by giving levels of passion
answers for each question.
This made many people feel that the Quiz was biased. (The earlier versions
were biased, blatantly so. The original idea was to attempt to
offset the statist bias of the mainstream media to measure where people
would stand if there was balanced coverage overall. People were offered the
opportunity to react negatively to the biased intros, however. Producing
false positives was not the goal.)